Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 19
Neem

Ancient Astronaut Theory

1,941 posts in this topic

I guess I fall into the "skepptic" camp. I am not goig to firmly say there were no ancient astronauts due to the facts, relics if you will, that does make one wonder and these can be debated as to exactly what they might or might not mean or even imply in apperance, shape, etc. I do wonder why "ancient astronauts" were here in the first place.? One could debate about hem passing on advaanced info. in the fields of building, astronomy, even religious influences. I have read Von. Dan. books and he makes a good case for them being here but I guess it's me, I accept life beyond our little world, so I read whatever comes out about the possibilities of such visitations and just wonder.

I think I'm blind now... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the advantage is that it will still be hanging onto your retina minutes after you stopped looking at it, hahaha !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not even in caps, it's in some horribly designed font that looks like it's all caps, with almost no spacing between words.

I think the font is called Impact. It's a display font, which means it's designed for headers or titles--but definitely not for body text. It's not at all a friendly font to read, and together with the blood-red color I feel like I'm being mugged. :lol:

Posters should stick with the default font and color. They're the easiest and kindest to read. Bold fonts and colors might be useful for paragraph headers or such, but the zanier a font looks, the less likely people will be to read the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's all post like this!

Oooo, pretty! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's all post like this!

Oooo, pretty! :w00t:

You annoying man. That's just horrible!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had any reason to visit earth, it must have sighteeing, lol, simple curiosity.

And then mess around with genes, just to have a bit more fun. Maybe playing 'god' is fun too.

Hmm.. you say you fall into the sceptic camp, but then you say Von Daniken makes a 'good case'. Well, if you consider outright lying and fraud to be ways to make a good case...

I am not sure if this remark was random, but in actual fact Abe you are very close to the mark. The visitors that came here approx 9000 years ago did indeed play God by messing around with Genetics. (Genesis = Genes of Isis).

This explains much about the current human condition, but in particular two points should be stressed:

1) It explains why there is a 'disconnect' between the pre-Egyptian advanced culture and the humans that came after (those of today). Think: We know nothing of their language, values, technology, religion. This is explained by the view that if our genetics were altered, we would not have the translation capability and codings to understand what went on before. Of course modern archaeology gets around this problem by saying that no intelligent race existed before the ancient Egyptians which is just about the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard!

2) It explains why humans today know nothing of their purpose in the grand scheme of creation and why the human race seems to be'lost'; and indeed why the higher faculties and 90% of the brain are basically non-functioning. Introducing faulty genetics into the human line would affect higher natural development and evolution.

These points if read carefully will reveal much to the genuine enquirer. 'Scientific' dissection and comparison with the high school history manual however will not.

There the matter stands.

Z

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure if this remark was random, but in actual fact Abe you are very close to the mark. The visitors that came here approx 9000 years ago did indeed play God by messing around with Genetics. (Genesis = Genes of Isis).

This explains much about the current human condition, but in particular two points should be stressed:

1) It explains why there is a 'disconnect' between the pre-Egyptian advanced culture and the humans that came after (those of today). Think: We know nothing of their language, values, technology, religion. This is explained by the view that if our genetics were altered, we would not have the translation capability and codings to understand what went on before. Of course modern archaeology gets around this problem by saying that no intelligent race existed before the ancient Egyptians which is just about the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard!

2) It explains why humans today know nothing of their purpose in the grand scheme of creation and why the human race seems to be'lost'; and indeed why the higher faculties and 90% of the brain are basically non-functioning. Introducing faulty genetics into the human line would affect higher natural development and evolution.

These points if read carefully will reveal much to the genuine enquirer. 'Scientific' dissection and comparison with the high school history manual however will not.

There the matter stands.

Z

I see no real disconnect as you mention. Can you be more specific? Civilizations rise and fall and knowledge is found and lost but this does not support AA theory in isolation.

As a 'genuine enquirer' and reading your post I find nothing revealing tbh. We know a lot more about egyptian culture and higher brain function than you appear to recognize. Please do not make such sweeping generalizations as concerns the 'human race' either. We are all different and explain our experiences from alternate perspectives but you seem to think you are in possesion of some knowledge that we are not.

I am intrigued to hear your theories and evidence of why you believe we were visited 9,000 years ago, I really am but from my own research I find a date of 9,000 years of little consequence. If we were 'seeded' in some way or other then it would have to have been earlier than that don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure if this remark was random, but in actual fact Abe you are very close to the mark. The visitors that came here approx 9000 years ago did indeed play God by messing around with Genetics. (Genesis = Genes of Isis).

This explains much about the current human condition, but in particular two points should be stressed:

1) It explains why there is a 'disconnect' between the pre-Egyptian advanced culture and the humans that came after (those of today). Think: We know nothing of their language, values, technology, religion. This is explained by the view that if our genetics were altered, we would not have the translation capability and codings to understand what went on before. Of course modern archaeology gets around this problem by saying that no intelligent race existed before the ancient Egyptians which is just about the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard!

2) It explains why humans today know nothing of their purpose in the grand scheme of creation and why the human race seems to be'lost'; and indeed why the higher faculties and 90% of the brain are basically non-functioning. Introducing faulty genetics into the human line would affect higher natural development and evolution.

These points if read carefully will reveal much to the genuine enquirer. 'Scientific' dissection and comparison with the high school history manual however will not.

There the matter stands.

Z

A few things on point 1. Where exactly do you see a disconnect? We know plenty of their language, values, technology, religion. The fact that you don't know or seem to believe, this knowledge to amounts to nothing, is another problem entirely.

Where and how does modern archaeology get around this problem by saying that no intelligent race existed before the ancient Egyptians? Care to source and elaborate that, please? As far as I know archeology says no such thing.

....talking about rubbish....

Edit : typos

Edited by TheSearcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few things regarding the last 2 posts:

Archaelogy to my knowledge recognises no advanced civilisation prior to the what historians refer to as the Ancient Egyptians. Please don't cite the Sumarians because that is not what I am referring to. If you are aware of a recognised culture, then I would be more than fascinated to know and I would also be pleasantly surprised.

The evidence of an advanced pre Egyptian culture is not a matter of debate for me. Advanced relics, worldwide folklore, and religious writings all allude to this. The popular names that have given this credance are for example Von Daniken, Plato, Stitchen, Cayce, Hancock, Bauval, Gurdjeff, all from different times and places and with slightly different perspectives.

My information comes from another source not commonly known. I don't exercise a monopoly on it, but at the same time I will only give it freely on the condition that it is treated with respect. Think: if something is treasured, will you not exercise care with it? I have alluded to this many times before on this forum, however to date no one has really asked genuinely about it and so I can only assume that no one really wants it.

Mr Searcher - how would you really feel if it was the case that I did know more than you about this subject? Have you genuinely spent your life looking for rare, profound and special knowledge? I have and diligently so. So have others, since I am not the only one with this knowledge. Finally ask yourself how open are you really to the proposition of new knowledge? Are you satisfied with what you currently have, and what is easily available in the world? If so then the matter rests there. If not, then I remain open to your further enquiry.

Z

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, Zoser, I only made a joke.

But now you talk about some 'secret source' of information....

My guess: it's a spiritual souce... probably something to do with 'chanelling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few things regarding the last 2 posts:

Archaelogy to my knowledge recognises no advanced civilisation prior to the what historians refer to as the Ancient Egyptians. Please don't cite the Sumarians because that is not what I am referring to. If you are aware of a recognised culture, then I would be more than fascinated to know and I would also be pleasantly surprised.

The evidence of an advanced pre Egyptian culture is not a matter of debate for me. Advanced relics, worldwide folklore, and religious writings all allude to this. The popular names that have given this credance are for example Von Daniken, Plato, Stitchen, Cayce, Hancock, Bauval, Gurdjeff, all from different times and places and with slightly different perspectives.

My information comes from another source not commonly known. I don't exercise a monopoly on it, but at the same time I will only give it freely on the condition that it is treated with respect. Think: if something is treasured, will you not exercise care with it? I have alluded to this many times before on this forum, however to date no one has really asked genuinely about it and so I can only assume that no one really wants it.

Mr Searcher - how would you really feel if it was the case that I did know more than you about this subject? Have you genuinely spent your life looking for rare, profound and special knowledge? I have and diligently so. So have others, since I am not the only one with this knowledge. Finally ask yourself how open are you really to the proposition of new knowledge? Are you satisfied with what you currently have, and what is easily available in the world? If so then the matter rests there. If not, then I remain open to your further enquiry.

Z

Zoser, you need not reveal your source if you fear mockery. I for one will not mock you as I am curious to learn more but you do need to be a bit more specific imo. I am also thinking that you may limit yourself to A theory somewhat. I think you would be interested in the cyclopean architecture thread particularly the sites of Caral, Peru which predate the earliest pyramids.

I am confused why you are not referring to Sumer as they are who Sitchin has devote his research to and he claims they were a global empire of sorts.I think Sitchin may have misunderstood certain things but I find the sumerian culture one of the most incredible for a number of reasons. These things crop up in other threads and it was only my discovery of ASPM that brought me back to AA because I don't find the evidence that compelling to support AAs.

I still don't understand your 9,000bce date or whatever it was but I do hope you can help me understand your position more without revealing too much about your source. I understand it is precious to you and you want to protect it but unfettered belief in something can be dangerous. I recommend trying to evaluate your own sources and prepare yourself with counter arguments for the criticism that you innevitably must be prepared for. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a source and link as well Zoser. I'm always fascinated by legends such as those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few things regarding the last 2 posts:

Archaelogy to my knowledge recognises no advanced civilisation prior to the what historians refer to as the Ancient Egyptians. Please don't cite the Sumarians because that is not what I am referring to. If you are aware of a recognised culture, then I would be more than fascinated to know and I would also be pleasantly surprised.

The evidence of an advanced pre Egyptian culture is not a matter of debate for me. Advanced relics, worldwide folklore, and religious writings all allude to this. The popular names that have given this credance are for example Von Daniken, Plato, Stitchen, Cayce, Hancock, Bauval, Gurdjeff, all from different times and places and with slightly different perspectives.

My information comes from another source not commonly known. I don't exercise a monopoly on it, but at the same time I will only give it freely on the condition that it is treated with respect. Think: if something is treasured, will you not exercise care with it? I have alluded to this many times before on this forum, however to date no one has really asked genuinely about it and so I can only assume that no one really wants it.

Mr Searcher - how would you really feel if it was the case that I did know more than you about this subject? Have you genuinely spent your life looking for rare, profound and special knowledge? I have and diligently so. So have others, since I am not the only one with this knowledge. Finally ask yourself how open are you really to the proposition of new knowledge? Are you satisfied with what you currently have, and what is easily available in the world? If so then the matter rests there. If not, then I remain open to your further enquiry.

Z

I, too, would be curious to see you lay out your case. To date you have said little to defend your position, and to date you have never actually elaborated on your position in a meaningful way, that I have seen. You spend a lot of time poo-pooing orthodox science but rarely explain what it is you believe.

Leaving aside known hacks and charlatans like von Däniken, Sitchen, Cayce, Hancock, and Bauval, and esoteric mystics like Gurdjieff (note that Plato does not belong among this list of dubious characters), what can you offer to disprove science and research in any way? I have never seen you even attempt it. You strike me as an intelligent person, so why do you hide behind this shroud of yours? "Special" knowledge is achieved through years of hard and committed research and study, not by channelling, so I hope that's not your answer.

What have you to offer, zoser? You know I'm one of the staunchest "skeptics" in this forum, so I'm more than willing to debate you point by point. However, I can't do that if all you wish to do is obfuscate. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few things regarding the last 2 posts:

Archaelogy to my knowledge recognises no advanced civilisation prior to the what historians refer to as the Ancient Egyptians. Please don't cite the Sumarians because that is not what I am referring to. If you are aware of a recognised culture, then I would be more than fascinated to know and I would also be pleasantly surprised.

The evidence of an advanced pre Egyptian culture is not a matter of debate for me. Advanced relics, worldwide folklore, and religious writings all allude to this. The popular names that have given this credance are for example Von Daniken, Plato, Stitchen, Cayce, Hancock, Bauval, Gurdjeff, all from different times and places and with slightly different perspectives.

My information comes from another source not commonly known. I don't exercise a monopoly on it, but at the same time I will only give it freely on the condition that it is treated with respect. Think: if something is treasured, will you not exercise care with it? I have alluded to this many times before on this forum, however to date no one has really asked genuinely about it and so I can only assume that no one really wants it.

Mr Searcher - how would you really feel if it was the case that I did know more than you about this subject? Have you genuinely spent your life looking for rare, profound and special knowledge? I have and diligently so. So have others, since I am not the only one with this knowledge. Finally ask yourself how open are you really to the proposition of new knowledge? Are you satisfied with what you currently have, and what is easily available in the world? If so then the matter rests there. If not, then I remain open to your further enquiry.

Z

Al depends of course on your definition of advanced culture, but as far as I see it, it starts with the passage from hunter gatherer to sedentary farming communities, which is the stepping stone to everything else. For those there are plenty of examples, that are prior to Ancient Egypt.

For example, the Jiahu site in China, which was the site of a Neolithic Yellow River settlement based in the central plains of ancient China, modern Wuyang, Henan Province. Archaeologists consider the site to be one of the earliest examples of the Peiligang culture. The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture in the Ukraine-Moldova-Romania.

This said, if your definition differs from mine, then this is quite a moot point as we will never see eye to eye on this.

With the exception of Plato, I don't think that Von Daniken, Stitchen, Cayce, Hancock, Bauval, or Gurdjeff give any credence to anything. Sorry to disagree.

Zoser, if you're so sure about your source, just come out with it already. You keep alluding to a lot of things, yet never actually outright say it. God knows you actually have been asked often enough...

Singling me out on a personal level? Best you can do? Seriously? But ok, I'll bite. I know where I come from and what I have learned over the course of my life. I've studied and researched the things that struck my curiosity, in some cases it took me many years to assimilate said knowledge. I still learn new things every day. There is no knowledge in the world that is easily available, it all takes work, work and more work. If you get it by any other means, it's probably not worth knowing.

So I dare say yes, I have "spent my life looking for rare, profound and special knowledge". Having said this, I also dare say that there is a difference in what you and I consider "rare and special knowledge".

Like I already said, if you are that sure about your source and the things you say you know, let us have it. Stop obfuscating, like Kmt calls it :P .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Advanced' can only really mean one thing and that is in terms of the ability to manipulate forces, energy and matter in ways that we today would not readily understand. Part of the reason that we have lost this technology is described in my last but one post.

What concerns me is when people show more interest in arguing a point and being defensive about their own position rather than being genuine about seeking new knowledge. You see I have always come from the latter position, as I have always been skeptical about how information concerning the deep and important things in life are presented to us. Basically I have never been satisfied with it.

Try and understand that a specific kind of mentality persists here; namely that anything that presents itself as different immediately gets subject to the abrasiveness of University style argument. I don't really want any part of that. This is not the fault of the people on this forum; it's how modern life brings us up and trains us. If you at least appreciate what I am saying here it would be very useful indeed and a good starting point.

I have no desire to with hold anything since I do not own what I have been given. It's just that I can only dispense it under the right circumstances to people with the correct attitude.

I didn't mean to single you out Jim and Mr Searcher and I do know you to be nice people with a good sense of enquiry and interest. Mr KMT included. You have to recognise however that we have all been a victim of 20th Century education and that has not really equipped us for tackling the really important questions in life.

So unless there is a willingness to be more open to new views, all I can really do is what I have been doing, and that is to pop in from time to time and offer small snippets of what I have to see if it resonates with anyone. I will leave it there for now.

See you all soon.

Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember now one source you once mentioned in a post, Zoser.

And it was some spiritual site/source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser said:

'Advanced' can only really mean one thing and that is in terms of the ability to manipulate forces, energy and matter in ways that we today would not readily understand. Part of the reason that we have lost this technology is described in my last but one post.

Personally I think the biggest problem with claims of ancient 'advanced' civilizations is that people base those claims on not having a clue how we modern people of today would have solved a problem the ancients obviously did.

I think it's not about being advanced by having superior knowledge and/or technology and/or unknown sources of energy, but about tackling some problem in a totally new or different way.

I assume you will have seen the video of that guy who manipulated large concrete stones with nothing but wooden levers and smart thinking? He only used a different way of solving the problem of erecting huge slabs of stone, and so created his own version of 'Stonehenge'.

But up to his demonstrations there were only theories about how the ancients could have erected those huges stones in the distant past, and those theories often went from some super-civilization to aliens to yet unknown forms of energy, or to simply not knowing how the hell they could have done it.

And then this guy comes along, and shows us a very reasonable, yet unexpected way to get the job done, and single handed without the help of others.

It's what De Bono called 'lateral thinking'.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Z I can appreciate your position but it is still far too vague to resonate on any level with me. Shame as I want to learn what you believe to be the case.

'Advanced' is a relative term that we use to describe what is above or beyind the average. In this sense the pyramid builders and other civilizations were advanced and personally I have a few alternatives to explain this without resorting to aliens. Admittedly, aliens are one point to consider but far from the only or most likely option.

I agree that modern science does pose a problem by its adherence to rationality. While this is vital to understanding the ancient world it can only take us so far. I think that various things have ben written out or in to history over the millenia and getting an idea as to what has been veiled is an intriguing prospect. Maybe the difference between yours and my positions is that when you read texts from channelings like Cayce or Blavatsky you take them to be truw because they came from a higher source. I prefer to take things on their merits. Thus the tales of Atlantis may be true but eqully they may have been misunderstood or deceptions from beyond this dimension. Basically I do not trust channelled entities to be truthful.

I have tried to gather parts from the occult that can be connected to archeology or mythology and this is why I am currently facsinated by the 'cyclops'. I think these myths may well have influenced HPB but not in a literal way. I just thing she may have continued with the allegory so to speak. She mentions that cyclops may have originated from blacksmiths and initiated builders. The presence of mystery religions in prehistory resonates strongly with me. The mystery initiations may have been handed down from aliens originally but at the same time it could have just been from a preceding culture that was in decline but chose to preserve its teachings on wisdom.

That is a basic outline of one of my positions that applies to AA theory. Maybe not explained that well but I'd like to understand your position so we can benefit from the interaction of opinions.

All people want on here is sources. Granted that poses a problem when dealing with esoteric matters as the sources do not carry the weight of academic material. However, I would glady look for connections with what you believe and ancient sources, which hopefully would support or deny your own theories. If we do not abide, to an extent with the method of scholarly works then we should not expect others to believe them simply because there is zero evidence.

Ideally, you want information from a channel that can then be supported by ancient historians or mythology, which then connects to some tangible archeology. If such a triangle could be shown to exist then it comes down to competitive plausability because there are sufficient mysteries that remain unexplained to warrant a skepticism of the established positions.

For example, I found a reference to ASPM from a Sitchinesque source. It made claims that ASPM increased in human brains 6,000 years ago. It was also connected to the Nippur calendar that started in 3,760bce when Anu made a stately visit. However, when I tried to back this up I could find very little real evidence. In the book of jubilees that date was given as the start of creation but I could find nothing from archeology to prove that there was even a tablet describing the descent of Anu around this time. The situation in Iraq may have impeded the archeology but a lot has already been discovered there and nothing that has been published on the net supports a conection between the Nippur calendar and the increaes in ASPM. I hope that is clear and you can see why I am unable to form the triangle of plauasability.

As attractive as the AA theories are until a little evidence is shown to directly relate to them they will remain attracive theories that some may want to believe in to support their beliefs in otherworldly things. This is not enough to justify saying they definitely did exist and there is a cover up. IMO we should look at the evidence that is already avaiable and connect them using mythology, language and anything else that may show relationships between cultures. For example I find the sumerian pantheon strikingly similar to the egyptian and hindu ones but from opposite ends and with a fair amount of veiling to make the understanding extermemly challenging. It does not fit perfectly and so at some point resonance and intuition are necessary over rationale but not exclusively of course. This is just my approach and not by any stretch as valueable as mainstream ancient historians who are far more qualified. The advantage that we may have is no allegiances and therefore a willingness to interpret the facts from different angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser,

Unless you are a bit more forthcoming, it's not possible to weigh the information you are talking about.

Do you have a link to this information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser,

Unless you are a bit more forthcoming, it's not possible to weigh the information you are talking about.

Do you have a link to this information?

I don't have enough patience for this bull.

I have met more than enough pretenders on the internet.

Many claim 'secret knowledge' and when asked about it, they fall silent for a while, and come back with , "Sorry, but I sense too much opposition".

I have my own site about Carlos Castaneda, I know about tricks and pretenders.

Most of them are real nobodies pretending to be 'inheritors of the true knowledge'.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So true, Abramelin. So true.

Claiming "secret knowledge" is the same as admitting: "I cannot substantiate my claims, neither science nor research can corroborate my claims, so I am forced to invent some 'magical source' that cannot possibly be verified." In other words, "secret knowledge" is pointless because it cannot contribute in any meaningful way to a proper understanding of any given subject.

This is why we so-called "skeptics" come down so hard on such claims. Anyone who insists proper scientific inquiry is unnecessary but "channeling" (or whatever it might be) has revealed "THE TRUTH," is not coming to us with any degree of credibility. Posters who ignore folks likes Reisner, Lehner, Ardnold, Wilkinson, or other legitimate scholars but swoon over the likes of von Däniken, Sitchin, and Bauval clearly have very real intellectual issues to deal with.

Sorry for the p***y attitude. I simply get fed up with fringe whimsy and its implied lack of reality. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So true, Abramelin. So true.

Claiming "secret knowledge" is the same as admitting: "I cannot substantiate my claims, neither science nor research can corroborate my claims, so I am forced to invent some 'magical source' that cannot possibly be verified." In other words, "secret knowledge" is pointless because it cannot contribute in any meaningful way to a proper understanding of any given subject.

This is why we so-called "skeptics" come down so hard on such claims. Anyone who insists proper scientific inquiry is unnecessary but "channeling" (or whatever it might be) has revealed "THE TRUTH," is not coming to us with any degree of credibility. Posters who ignore folks likes Reisner, Lehner, Ardnold, Wilkinson, or other legitimate scholars but swoon over the likes of von Däniken, Sitchin, and Bauval clearly have very real intellectual issues to deal with.

Sorry for the p***y attitude. I simply get fed up with fringe whimsy and its implied lack of reality. <_<

Please don't excuse yourself for a p***y atitude, I have that a lot myself, lol.

It's a real emotion, and nothing like, "What should I do to attract their attention, and make them think great about me?"

These guys play with us, all they want is attention, and then await responses for a couple of weeks, and come back with. "Sorry, I was busy. How are you all? My spiritual guide told me there are some individuals who disturb the vibes and the harmony."

You know, Kmt, I love martial arts, I practised it myself for 5 years, and I wasn't that bad.

You can think you are great, and that you know all the great moves no one ever learned about, but then you have to face your opponent who doesn't give a flying fk about how great you think your knowledge is.

He hits your face, you go down, end of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. However, the point remains, we have nothing concrete to go on yet. I can only imagine how many times both of you have seen bait like this.

So, put the song on about getting knocked down and you get right back up so you can get knocked back down so you can get right back up so you can get knocked down again so you can get right back up (trust me when I tell you the song does a much better job of this)

While we are waiting I have to ask, what style Martial Arts Abramelin? & Did those nagual masters really turn into insects or was Don Juaan just screwing with our heads through poor Carlos? I DID like the three sisters, too. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People buying the stairway to fame....

Well guys, fame takes a little more than "secret knowledge" unless of course you are buying the stairway to infamy. Sounds almost the same but it sure ain't.

As for the three posts above: I feel with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't excuse yourself for a p***y atitude, I have that a lot myself, lol.

It's a real emotion, and nothing like, "What should I do to attract their attention, and make them think great about me?"

These guys play with us, all they want is attention, and then await responses for a couple of weeks, and come back with. "Sorry, I was busy. How are you all? My spiritual guide told me there are some individuals who disturb the vibes and the harmony."

You know, Kmt, I love martial arts, I practised it myself for 5 years, and I wasn't that bad.

You can think you are great, and that you know all the great moves no one ever learned about, but then you have to face your opponent who doesn't give a flying fk about how great you think your knowledge is.

He hits your face, you go down, end of story.

It really drives me nuts. It's not just zoser but many other posters who use these copouts to avoid useful and dedicated debate. "I have access to a very special and mystical source but am not inclined to share. The vibes here are not in tune with the esoteric Ju Ju Beans of cosmic clarity and harmony, so my 4,500-year-old spirit guide, Dimwit-de-Crapolageist, has fled to kinder alternative realms."

Wow, now I am getting really p***y! I should shut up except to say, what's the point of joining a forum like UM when you use this kind of stall tactic? What's the point, man?

I, too, used to be into martial arts. Mine were Shorin-Ryu and Ryukyu Kempo. I, however, was never that good, so when it came to sparring in tournaments, I more or less knew I was going to get my keester handed to me. I didn't much care because, damn, it was fun! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 19

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.